Idols to the Left, Idols to the Right

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Idols of naturalism to the left.

Idols of naturalism to the right.

Where to begin?

Well, let's begin from "left" to "right."

The current inept, Marxist-trained President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, worships at the altar of international public opinion. It was only after leaders of European countries such as France and the United Kingdom began to urge intervention in Libya to enforce a "no fly zone" as a means of protecting rebels who are seeking the ouster of Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi. Although there was no imminent threat posed to the national security or to the national interests of the United States of America, Obama authorized American military action without consulting Congressional leaders, no less seeking what no president has sought since the onset of official American military involvement in World War II, namely, a declaration of war. Obama placed American military forces into harm's way without any kind of Congressional authorization, including the fig leafs given to President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991 prior to the "Gulf War" and to George Walker Bush in 2003 prior to the "Iraq War" because he claimed to be acting at the behest of the United Masonic Nations Organization.

According to Obama and his factotums, American military involvement in Libya does not constitute a war. It's nothing other than "kinetic military action." George Orwell, call you office:

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently
faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military
officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the
answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben
Rhodes took a crack at an answer. "I think what we are doing is
enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is
protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and
setting up a no-fly zone," Rhodes said. "Obviously that involves
kinetic military action, particularly on the front end."

Rhodes' words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom
Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration
contemplated action in Libya. "Military steps -- and they can be
kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range -- are not the only
method by which we and the international community are pressuring
Gadhafi," Donilon said.

Rhodes and Donilon are by no means alone. "Kinetic" is heard in a
lot of descriptions of what's going on in Libya. "As we are successful
in suppressing the [Libyan] air defenses, the level of kinetic activity
should decline," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a meeting with
reporters in Moscow Tuesday. In a briefing with reporters the same day
from on board the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander
of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, said, "The coalition brings together a
wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral
damage when we have to take kinetic operations." On Monday, General
Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, said of the coalition forces,
"We possess certainly a very significant kinetic capability." And
unnamed sources use it too. "In terms of the heavy kinetic portion of
this military action, the president envisions it as lasting days, not
weeks," an unnamed senior official told CNN Saturday.

"Kinetic" is a word that's been used around the Pentagon for many
years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching
cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent
fighting like cyber-warfare. At times, it also appears to mean just
taking action. In a 2002 article in Slate, Timothy Noah noted a passage from Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War:

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic
question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S.
started going "kinetic," as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a
visible way?

Now, White House officials are referring to the war in Libya not as a
war but as a "kinetic military action." As common as "kinetic" might be
among those in government, it still seems likely to strike members of
the public as a euphemism that allows the Obama administration to
describe a war as something other than a war. (White House: Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action.)

Yes, Barack Hussein Obama, the man for whom many Americans voted on November 4, 2008, to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to "fix" the American economy that had suffered in large measure because of Federal expenditures on these wars has not started a new war at the behest of one of his all-time favorite false idols, the United Masonic Nations Organization. He has committed the armed forces of the United States of America to "kinetic military action."

No one has defined the war's goals. No one can say how much the "kinetic military action" will cost American taxpayers.

No one has been able to provide a coherent rationale as to why American "kinetic military action" in Libya is warranted while such "action" is not warranted in other places where innocent human beings are being slaughtered at the commands of various Arab autocrats in Bahrain, whose leaders have been aided by the desert rats from Saudi Arabia, and Yemen and Syria and by the out-and-out Mohammedan zealots in Iran (who are, of course, Persians, not Arabs).

Even the "allies" are in great disarray as they decide things that have to be decided before war, I mean "kinetic military action" (excuse me, please), is undertaken. You know, little things such as the ultimate goal to be achieved and how to recognize that that goal has been achieved (see Allies Are Split on Goal and Exit Strategy in Libya). No military action is justified unless there is a due consideration, as far as is humanly possible, as to the end to be pursued in a given war, whether that end is achievable and, ultimately, whether the foreseen evil consequences attendant to the prosecution of that end outweighs whatever benefits might be derived from achieving it.

Why is American "kinetic military action" not warranted in Red China, where innocent human beings are killed quite regularly?

The only answer seems to be that Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus, feeling pressure from his beloved international community and willing to run the risk of alienating some of his fellow naturalists of the "left" who believed him in 2007 and 2008 to be as opposed to the policies of Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus as they were, is a creature of the United Masonic Nations Organization. He does not care about the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America. He cares about the United Masonic Nations Organization.

Barack Hussein Obama's love of the United Masonic Nations Organization and all other such international organizations seems to indicate that he will act in international crises as he is directed to by resolutions passed by that world body's Security Council and/or General Assembly. He does not believe that he has any obligation to consult with the leaders of the Congress of the United States of America or even to address the American public about why he has placed American military personnel in harm's way after running as an "anti-war" candidate in 2007 and 2008.

As Caesar Obamus is not a very deep thinker, he does not see the teology of his trust in the United Masonic Nations Organization. If it is justified for a coalition of nations to intervene in a civil war in Libya in order to protect anti-government protesters there, why would it not be justified for a coalition of nations to intervene here in the United States to protect anti-government protesters here if confrontations broke out between them and police officials or troops? Caesar Obamus does not realize that he has given the leaders of Russia and Red China a pretext to intervene military in the United States of America in order to "protect" those who might protest far too vigorously in public for the liking of a particular presidential administration.

Alas, this is all but the logical result of what the United Masonic Nations Organization was meant to be from its very outset.

The United Masonic Nations Organization is based on
false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles,
the very essence, of course, of Judeo-Masonry. It proposes to secure
"peace" without a due submission to the Deposit of Faith that Our
Blessed Lord and Saviour entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church
and without a recognition that there can be no peace among nations if
there is no peace within the souls of men by means of their being in
states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church., whose
ultimate goal is to obliterate national sovereignty by the creation of a
panoply of interlocking international organizations that are meant to
take the place of the governing structures of individual nations. To pay
it any obeisance at all, especially in light of facts proving it to be
an incredible vehicle of promoting all manner of abject evils under the
cover of "humanitarianism," sometimes extorting nations in the Third
World to comply with evil plans in order to receive "humanitarian aid"
(which aid is then used by the leaders of the corrupt, dictatorial,
murderous governments in the Third Word for their own aggrandizement),
is a crime against God and man.

This is exactly what the conciliar "pontiffs," starting with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in Pacem in Terris,
have done long, long after the promise that Pope Pius XII held out for
the United Nations had proved to be illusory. It was clear by 1965 when
Giovanni Montini/Paul VI addressed the United Nations General Assembly
that the "world body" was promoting a "population control," concretizing
this evil agenda with the creation of the United Nations Population
Fund in 1969, the same year that then United States of America President
Richard Milhous Nixon presented a report to the United States Congress
to urge it to fund "international family planning" organizations,
something that not even the previous administration, that of the late
President Lyndon Baines Johnson, had done, although Johnson's "Great
Society" did initiate domestic "family planning" programs.

The unabashed enthusiasm for the "hope" provided by
the United Nations was expressed very clearly by Giovanni Montini/Paul
VI in his October 4, 1965, address to that organization's General
Assembly:

This encounter, as you well understand, is of a
twofold nature: it is marked both with simplicity and with greatness.
Simplicity, because you have before you a man like you, your brother,
and indeed one of the smallest among you who represent sovereign States;
for he is vested, if you wish to think of him as thus, with only a
minuscule and, as it were, symbolic temporal sovereignty, only as much
as is necessary to be free to exercise his spiritual mission and to
assure those who deal with him that he is independent of every other
sovereignty of this world. He has no temporal power, nor any ambition to
compete with you. In fact, We have nothing to ask for, no question to
raise. We have at most a desire to express and a permission to request:
namely, that of serving you in so far as lies within Our competence,
with disinterest, humility and love.

This is the first statement We have to give
you. As you see, it is so simple that it may seem insignificant to this
Assembly, which is accustomed to dealing with matters that are extremely
important and difficult. However, We also said and all here today feel
it that this moment is a singularly great one. It is a great moment for
Us, a great one for you.

For Us. You know
well who We are. Whatever may be the opinion you have of the Pontiff of
Rome, you know Our mission. We are the bearer of a message for all
mankind. And this We are, not only in Our own personal name and in the
name of the great Catholic family, but also in the name of those
Christian brethren who share the sentiments We express here, and
particularly of those who kindly charged Us explicitly to be their
spokesman here. Like a messenger who, after a long journey, finally
succeeds in delivering the letter entrusted to him, We are conscious of
living through a privileged moment, however brief, which fulfills a
desire cherished in Our heart for nearly twenty centuries. For, you
remember, We have been journeying long and We bring with Us a long
history; We here celebrate the epilogue of a toilsome pilgrimage in
search of a conversation with the entire world, from the day the command
was given to Us: "Go and bring the good tidings to all peoples." And it
is you who represent all peoples.

Let Us tell you that We have a message for all of you, a good message to deliver to each one of you.

Our message is meant to be, first of all, a
moral and solemn ratification of this lofty institution. This message
comes from Our historical experience. It is as an "expert in humanity"
that We bring to this Organization the suffrage of Our recent
Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and Our own,
convinced as We are that this Organization represents the obligatory
path of modern civilization and of world peace.

In saying this, We feel We are speaking with
the voice of the dead as well as of the living: of the dead who have
fallen in the terrible wars of the past, dreaming of concord and world
peace; of the living who have survived those wars, bearing in their
hearts a condemnation of those who seek to renew them; and of those
rightful expectation of a better humanity. And We also make Our own, the
voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering; of those who long
for justice for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and for
progress. The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to
honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also.
We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of
Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice
which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually
perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will
present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on
retreat is impossible; you must go forward. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965.)

The United Masonic Nations Organization is designed to undermine the sovereignty of nation-states by making the bureaucrats of international organizations the de facto rulers of all men everywhere, bypassing and making irrelevant the roles played by elected officials. We can see quite clearly that Barack Hussein Obama himself considers Congress to be but an irrelevancy. He is above the just laws of the United States of America because he is a slave to the prototypes of one world governance as represented by the United Masonic Nations Organization, which has shown itself to be an agent of evils that Pope Pius XII could not have imagined possible for men to promote publicly when he gave that organization his qualified approval in 1945, although he had tempered that early support by the time of his death on October 9, 1958, upset at the world body's unwillingness to confront the dangers posed by international Communism, which, of course, is but another form of the same kind of anti-Incarnational naturalism as is Americanism itself.

We must give thanks to Christ the King that His champion, Pope Pius XI, saw the fraud represented by such international bodies as the League of Nations as he mocked it in no uncertain terms:

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to
conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the
doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not
only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace
of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to
the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority)
that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations
must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more
important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the
nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its
acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in
all their activities, whether they be national or international, the
dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example
of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual,
then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the
peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow
out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An
attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its
results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as
they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously
and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can
be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be
in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the
possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It
cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated;
still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge
the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their
way back to the safe road. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ has given us His Mystical Body on earth, the Catholic
Church to be the supreme and sovereign guide of men and their nations. A
true Successor of Saint Peter does not address the leaders of the civil
governments or their world (or the representatives of those leaders) as
an equal. He is Christ on earth, superior to all civil leaders, who
must render unto Him as the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Saint
Peter a due and docile submission in all that pertains to the eternal
welfare of the souls that were ransomed by the shedding of every single
drop of His own Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross atop
Mount Calvary. He does not extol the heresy of religious "liberty" as
one of the cornerstones of "human rights." He exhorts all men and women
to submit themselves to the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary
our Immaculate Queen.

Father Denis Fahey, writing in The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, explained how Modernity has made warfare against the Social Reign of Christ the King:

We can thus easily see that the entrance of Christianity into the world has meant two things. Primarily
and principally, it has meant the constitution of a supernatural
society, the Mystical Body of Christ, absolutely transcending every
natural development of culture and civilisation. Secondly, it
has had as result that this supernatural society, the Catholic Church,
began to exercise a profound influence upon culture and civilisation and
modified in a far-reaching way the existing temporal or natural social
order. The indirect power of the Church over temporal affairs,
whenever the interests of the divine life of souls are involved,
presupposes, of course, a clear distinction of nature between the
ecclesiastical authority, charged with the care of divine things, and
the civil authority, whose mission is concerned with purely temporal
matters. In proportion as the Mystical Body of Christ
was accepted by mankind, political and economic thought and action began
to respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church,
endowed, as she is, with the right of intervention in temporal affairs
whenever necessary, because of her participation in the spiritual
kingship of Christ. Thus the natural or temporal common good of states
came to be sought in a manner calculated to favour the development of
true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ, and social
life came more and more under the influence of the supreme end of man,
the vision of God in the three divine Persons.

Accordingly, the divine plan for order
in our fallen and redeemed world comprises, primarily, the supernatural
social organism of the Catholic Church, and then, secondarily, the
temporal or natural social order resulting from the influence of
Catholic doctrine on politics and economics and from the embodiment of
that influence in social institutions. From the birth of the Catholic
Church on Calvary and the solemn promulgation of her mission at the
first Pentecost, the Kingdom of God in its essence has been present in
the world. As a result of the gradual acceptance of the role of the
Church by the temporal representatives of Christ the King, the social
institutions of states and nations became deeply permeated with the
influence of the supernatural life of Christ. Then, and only then, could
the Kingdom of God in its integrity or the rule of Christ the King in
its integrity, be said to exist. The Kingdom of God or the rule of
Christ the King is present in its integrity only in so far as the whole
social life of states, political and economic, is permeated with the
influence of the Church. To put it in other terms, Christ fully reigns
only when the programme for which He died is accepted as the one true
way to peace and order in the world, and social structures in harmony
with it are evolved.

The Kingdom of God in its essence is always with us, but the influence of the Church on politics and economics, in other
words, the extension of the Kingdom of God in its integrity, has varied
with the centuries. Broadly speaking, the thirteenth century has been,
so far, the high water mark of that influence. Since then, until
recently, there has been steady decay. No particular temporal social
order, of course, will ever realise all that the Church is capable of
giving to the world. Each of them will be defective for several reasons.

First of all, the action of the Church,
welcomed by some Catholics, will be opposed by the ignorance,
incapacity and perversity of others.

Secondly, even if all Catholics did
accept fully, they could only reflect some of the beauty of the Gospel
as the saints reflected some of the infinitely imitable holiness of
Christ.

Thirdly, there would still remain the
vast number of non-Catholics to be won for Christ and have their social
life organised under His rule. It is towards this latter goal that every
generation of Catholics is called upon to work. The aim is not,
needless to say, to bring back the Middle Ages, for the river of time
does not turn back in its course, but the aim is to impregnate a new
epoch with the divine principles of order so firmly grasped in the
thirteenth century. The result of the so-called Reformation and
the French Revolution has been to obscure the rights of God proclaimed
by our Lord Jesus Christ and to diffuse naturalism.

Naturalism
consists in the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our
nature to the supernatural life and order, or more radically still, in
the negation of the very existence of that life and order. In our day
owing to the progress of the anti-Christian revolt, the more radical
meaning has become common. Naturalism may be defined therefore as the
attitude of mind which denies the reality of the divine life of grace
and of our Fall therefrom by original sin. It rejects our consequent
liability to revolt against the order of the divine life, when this life
has been restored to us by our membership of Christ, and maintains that
all social life should be organized on the basis of that denial. We
must combat that mentality and proclaim the rights of God.

In his Encyclical letter on Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII teaches authoritatively:
“From what we have already set forth, it is indisputably evident that
their [the Freemasons’] ultimate aim is to uproot completely the whole
religious and political order of the world, which has been brought into
existence by Christianity, and to replace it by another in harmony with
their way of thinking. This will mean that the foundation and the laws
of the new structure of society will be drawn from pure naturalism.”
Now, it is historically certain that the Declaration of the Rights of
Man had been conceived and elaborated in the Masonic lodges before it
was presented to the States-General of France. Accordingly, the infamous
Declaration, a naturalistic or anti-supernatural document, is in
reality a declaration of war on membership of Christ and on the whole
structure of society based on that supernatural dignity. The
same naturalistic hostility to membership of Christ and the supernatural
life of grace runs through all the documents concerning human rights
drawn up under the influence of the organised forces that were
responsible for the Declaration of 1789. That is the real
struggle going on in the world, and in it every member of Christ is
called upon to play his or her part. There can be no neutrality. “He
that is not with me is against me ” (St. Matthew XII, 30.)

If Christ is not the King
of the hearts of men and recognize as the King of men and their nations,
ladies and gentlemen, then the devil is king. There is no "middle
ground at all, as Pope Leo XIII made clear in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship
with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups.
Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be
avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the
character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of
universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to
reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These
men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state
without God (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

The lords of Modernity who promote evils in their own countries, whose very sovereignty they seek to undermine by surrendering more and more power to international organizations, are enabled by the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who reject the Social Reign of Christ the King just as much as they do, preferring a form of political ecumenism that is just as offensive to Christ the King as is theological ecumenism. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has told us time and time again that "religions" can be a force for "peace" in the world. Indeed, he has told us that "peace" consists in the "coexistence" of the world's religions. This is madness. This is apostasy. This undermines the cause of the peace of the Prince of Peace, Who hates each and every single false religion and Who hates each and every effort to convince people that social order and international peace can be maintained absent a recognition that His own Incarnation in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb this very day by the power of God the Holy Ghost is meant to transform not only the private lives of individuals but the public lives of nations around the world until the end of time.

Conscious of making reparation for our own sins as we near the end of the Second Week of Lent, especially during this season of Septuagesima, may our Rosaries each day help lift the scales from the likes of the confused public officials in the world today, thereby hastening their return or conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true or lasting social order. We must continue to pray, of course, for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries who are so very responsible for undermining the social significance of the Incarnation and thus of the Social Reign of Christ the King that is meant to be extolled by all men in all nations at all times to the exultant shouts of :